Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gade Yellamma and 9 Ors.

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023MACMA/421/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The Court set aside the Tribunal's award holding the insurance company liable, noting the accident occurred before the policy was effective. Liability was shifted to the temporary owner, APSRTC, who is directed to deposit compensation with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; the Tribunal's award against the insurance company set aside; APSRTC directed to deposit compensation with interest within three months.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gade Yellamma and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

FRIOAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY^{OF JULY} TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶7

MOTORACCID ENT CIVIL MISCE^{LLANEOUSAPPEALNO: 421 OF 2008}

¶8

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of^{Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree} in O.P.No. 1951 of^2OO5 dated^{19.09.2007 on the fite of the Court ofthe} chairman Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal -cum- llAdditional District Judge,} Warangal.

¶9

Between:

¶10

United lndia lnsurance Co^{Ltd, Divisional Office Warangal throughits Regional} Officer, Hyderabad rep by^its Deputy^Manager.

¶11

...APPELLANT/R.3

¶12

AND

¶13

Gade Yellamma, Wo.late Mallaiah,^{Occ: Household, R/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal^{District, A.P.}

¶14

R-1 is dismissed for default^{vide Court order dated 17 .02.2017}

¶15

Gade Yadaiah, S/o.late Mallaiah,^{Occ:Agriculture' Fl/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet^{Mandal,WarangalDistrict,A.P.}

¶16

Gade Yakaiah, S/o.late^{Mallaiah, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet Mandal,^{Warangal District, A.P.}

¶17

Gade Kumaraswamy, S/o.late^{Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal^{District, A.P.}

¶18

Gade Venkataiah, S/o.late^{Mallaiah, Occ: AgricultureRl/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal^{District, A.P.}

¶19

Birru Pullamma, Aged^{NotKnown, Occ: Household,Fyo.Nallabelli Village,} Warddannapet Mahdal, Warangal^{District,A.P.}

¶20

Linoamoalli Raieswar^Rdo, S/o.Ananda^{Rao, Occ: Business,Fl/o.Qr.No B-31,} TTS NTPC., Girdavari Khani, Karimnagar^District.

¶21

United lndia lnsurance Co^{Ltd,O/o.Divisional OfficeKarimangar.}

¶22

APSRTC, Nirmal Depot,^Karimnagar District,^{rep by its DepotManager,}

¶23

lO.APSRTC, Mushberabad,^{Hyderabad,rep by its Managing Director}

¶24

(R2 to 6 herein are not necessary parties tc, the appeal, as no Award is passed in their favour also R-8, R-10 here in is also not necessary party, given up).

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP. NO: 1059 OF 2

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of execution of^judgment and decree pasr;ed in OP No.1951 of 2005 dated 19.09.2007 by MACT cum ll Addl. District Judge,, Warangal.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. A. V. K.S. PIIASAD

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM $RINIVAS SC for T.S.R.T.C

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI.'USTICE^{M. LAXMAN}

¶32

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL} N0.421 OF 2004

¶33

JUDGMENT:

¶34

The present Motor^{Accident Civil MiscellaneousAppeal} has been directed against^{award datcd 19'O9'2OO7in} O.P.No.1951 of 2005^{on the file of the MotorAccident Claims} Tribunal-cum-lI^{Additional District Judge,Warangal} (hereinalter referred to^as "lribunal')'

¶35

The present appeal^{is filed by the appellant-insurance} company against foisting^{of liabitityon it jointly and severally} along with owner^{of the vchiclc/ respondentNo 7 hereinby} exonerating Andhra^{PradeshRoad Transport Corporation (for} short'R.T.C.')/respondent^{Nos.9 and lO herein'}

¶36

The facts disclose^{that respondent No'7 herein is owner} of the vehicle^{bearingNo.AP15 V 1800and he has given the} vehicle on hire to^{Nirmal,R.T.C' Depot' On 08'07'2005'} while the deceased^{was crossing road at KatyalaX road' the} said bus while^{going from Thorrur to Warangalhit the} deceased.^{As a result, the deceased,who sustainedinjuries} Succumbedtodeath.ThepoliceregisteredFirstlnformation Reportanclcha'rgcsheetrvasfiledunderSection304-Aofthe \ Indian Penal^{Code, 1860. \} 4/

¶37

¶38

The case oI the appellant-insurance company is that policv rvas issued bJ, them to respondept No.7 herein to cover the liabilitl, arising out ol use cf above said vehicie commencing [rom 09.07 .2005 and the accident occurred prior to such commelicement, as such rhe.v are not iiable to pay any compensatiorr. It is further contended that the policy issued was on holci ciue to dishonor of cheque and the poiicy u as extended only from th,: d21" of payment ol amount. Therefore, they are not liable to pay comperlsation anci the R.T.C., u,hich is temporary cr,r,ner of the vehicle, is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunai has disregarded the counter filcd by the appellant-insurance company and exonerated respondent l.los.9 and l0 i.e., R.T.C., froin liabiiity and liabilitv was foisted on the appellant-insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the present appeal.

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10 i.e., R.T.C. contended that as tr)er the hire purchase agreement, it is the owner of the vetricle, who agreed to bear the liability and he alone is liable to pay compensation, if any, in terms of the hire purchase agreement and the R.T.C. is not liable.

\ \

None appeared and there is^no representation for respondent Nos.1 to^7.

¶45

7 . In the present case, admittedly,^{the policy issuedby the} appellant commences^{from midnight of O9.O7'2005 and the} accident occurred on^{08.07.2005.Expressly,when the} accident occurred^{there was no policy issued by the} appellant-insurance company.^{Therefore, the findings of the} Tribunal that insurance^{company isliable topay} compensation requires to^{be set aside and the sameis} hereby set aside.

¶46

Coming to the^{contentionof the learnedstanding} counsel for R.T.C., admittedly,^{the policy issued by the} appellant-insurance^{company expired on 07} 'O7^{'2005 and the} R.T.C., should not^{haveoperated the vehicle by virtueof the} hire purchase^{agreement withoutany insurance policy'The} usage of vehicle^{was done by the R.T.C' and itis the} temporary owner as^{per the hire purchaseagreement'} Hence, it is liable to^{pay compensationand if they have any} recourse i.e., they^{have right to recover the same from the} owner of the vehicle on^{the strength of the hire purchase} agreement, if any,^{as per the law. Therefore, the R'T'C'} cannot claim that^{it is not liable to pay compensation'}

¶47

.,1

¶48

In the resul,;, the Motor Accident Civii lr,{isceltane ous Appeal is allorved and au.zu'd rlatecl 19.O9.2OOZ in O.P.No.195i of 2005 passcd by, Lhe 'I'ribunal holciing that the appellan[-ir-rsurance com p.]11y is liable to pay compensation is set aside. lnsteaci of appcllanl and respondent No.B, respondcnt Nos.9 and 10 are directecl to dcposit tlte amoilllt ol cornpensation aw:rrdc.J b,,- the Tribunnl within three months from the date ot this judgmcnt along with interesi at 7.5 percent pei annLrrr fiom the date: of pctition till the datr: of rcalization. If the zrmounts are alrearly deposited by the appellan t-in s uraltce conlpanv and rv:thc.li:a.vn by r-espondent Nos.l to 6 hercir-r i.c., claimzrnts, thc appcllant-in surallce conipany is pcrmittcd to rcclaim :;uch amount from the amount dcpositccl by thc I?.T.C. / respondent Nos.9 and 1O. If the amounts are not rvithdrawn arrd kept intact with the Tribunai, the appellant-insurance cc,mpany is entitled to get back their amoul-lt. No order as to costs. Miscellar-reous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closqd.

¶49

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COI'Y// Ce SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

t. TheChairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Warangal. (With recrrrds)

¶52

One CC to SRl. A. V. K. S. PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

one CC to SRI GADDAM SRINIVASi SC for T.S.R.T.C topucl

¶54

Two CD Copies

DODI^w'

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810712A23

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.421 of 2008

i:
1
,i
1,, 78 o[I 2m
,. ')?-
' . J,,.
I i -',:l'.

M.A.C.M.A IS ALLOWED

G@ \aft{'{o

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

¶67

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAYOFJULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶68

PRESENT

¶69

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LA:XMAN

¶70

MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 421 OF 2008

¶71

Appeal Under SectionlT3 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in O.P.No. 1951 of 2005 dated 19.09.2007 on the file of the Court of the^Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶72

Between:

¶73

United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, Divisional Office Warangal through its^Regional Officer, Hyderabad rep by its Deputy Manager.

¶74

...APPELLANT/R-3

¶75

AND

¶76

Gade Yellamma, W/o.late Mallaiah, Occ: Household, Rl/o.Kadarigudem, Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal District, A.P.

¶77

R-1 is dismissed for default vide Court order dated 17.O2.2O17

¶78

Gade Yadaiah, S/o,late Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kadarigudem, Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal District, A.P.

¶79

Gade Yakaiah, S/o.late Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o.Kadarigudem, , Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal Diskict, A.P.

¶80

Gade Kumaraswamy, S/o.late Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture,^{Ri/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal District, A.P.

¶81

Gade Venkataiah, S/o.late Mallaiah, Occ: Agriculture^{R/o.Kadarigudem,} Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal District, A.P.

¶82

Birru Pullamma, Aged Not Known, Occ:^{Household, Rl/o.Nallabelli Village,} Warddannapet Mandal, Warangal District,^A.P.

¶83

Lingampalli Rajeswar Rao, S/o.Ananda Rao, Occ: Business,^{Rl/o.Qr.No.B-31,} TTS NTPC., Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District.

¶84

United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, O/o.Divisional Office Karimangar.

¶85

APSRTC, Nirmal Depot, Karimnagar^{District, rep by its Depot Manager,}

¶86

APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep by its Managing^Director

¶87

(R2 to 6 herein are not necessary parties to the appeal, as no Award is passed in their favour also R-8, R-10 here in is ali6 not necessarv oartv. siven up). ...cEsibftoEilrs

¶88

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower,3ourt and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. A. V. K.S. PRASAD, Advocate for the Appellant and of sRl GADDAM sRrNrvAS sc for T.s.R.T.c Advocate for the Respondent.

¶89

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶90

'1. That the Motor Accident civir Miscelaneous Appear is alowed and award dated 19.09.2007 in o.p. No. 1g5'1 0f 20115 passed by the tribunar hording that the appellant-insurance company is riabr() to pay compensation be and hereby is set aside;

¶91

That the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal '/vithin three months from the date of this Judgment arong with interest at 7.5 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶92

That the amounts are arready deposited by the appeflant-insurance company and withdrawn by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein i.e., claimants, the appellant insurance company be and hereby is prlrmitted to reclaim such amount from the amount deposited by the R.T.C:/resp,ondent Nos. 9 and 10;

¶93

That the amounts are not withdrawn and kept intact with the tribunar, the apperrant-insurance company be and hereby is entifled to get back their amounU

¶94

That there be no order as to costs in this app:al

¶95

Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSART ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD

¶96

To,

¶97

secri6ru oFFtcER

¶98

The Chairman Motor Accident Clerims Tribunal cum ll Additional District Judge, Warangal. (With recrtrds)

¶99

2 Two CD Copies W

( t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810712023

DECREE

MACMA.No.421 of 2008

M,A.C-M.A IS ALLOWED

\4Lq6cd '7,t..1Ttt,"lrt

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gade Yellamma and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gade Yellamma and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Srinivasulu and Anr.

Br Mngr.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyd Vs Ghanpur Rajamani , Rajibai and Anr.

United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Gottemukkala Rajavva , Rajamma and 7 Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chinthalacheruvu Jangaiah and Anr.

Ananthati Srinivas , Srinivas Goud Vs Syed Ahmed and Anr.

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Nelle Sridhar and Another